throwawyaaccoun

4 ms·

1.
by throwawyaaccoun 5y ago
I should have been more clear, so let me correct that. I am convinced. I agree that harm was done, and suffer from generalized anxiety disorder myself, so I empathize with the panic attacks that people received. It is because I believe th
2.
by throwawyaaccoun 5y ago
Oh, our society, especially America's, is overly litigious. I agree. But, pushing back a bit (in good faith), do you think asking an entity for your data, or asking them to delete it, should really be considered unusual and panic provo
3.
by throwawyaaccoun 5y ago
I mean this all in good faith: What is the difference between 100,000 individuals emailing 3-5 websites on that list, with their real identities, asking for things to be deleted (such that all 350k are covered)? Where is the meaningful diff
4.
by throwawyaaccoun 5y ago
Interesting. Ok, so let's say the deception wasn't the problem, suppose for the moment. Would the study have been more palatable if the researchers had more properly vetted the email list to ensure, say, >95% or perhaps even 10
5.
by throwawyaaccoun 5y ago
It's not intended to be whataboutism (sorry about that, I edited this in to clarify) -- I agree that the deception was wrong. But there seems to be something about this particular event that is riling people up, and that's what
6.
by throwawyaaccoun 5y ago
[Throwaway for privacy.] I know this was hashed out on the other threads a bit, but can someone please explain to me why folks are so up in arms about this, compared to, say, studies that scrape user data without consent (something the IRB